I just got back from vacation last week and of all the museums we toured, the most impressive for me was that of Teddy Roosevelt's home at Sagamore Hill in Oyster Bay Cove, LI and his artifact museum contained there in his uncle's home.

Compared with Teddy, we are all cowardly momma's boys. He did more by the age of 25 than most will do in a lifetime. While he was a son of well heeled privilege, he earned his keep as did his sons and daughters. He was a writer of 35 books, held numerous public offices including Commissioner of Police in NYC as well as Gov of NY and VP and Pres of the US. As Commissioner he fought the Tamany Hall corruption and earned a name for himself--one for which he speculated that he would never be allowed to hold public office again! He upset the poltical apple cart. Fortunately for us, he was wrong about the power of the corrupt and his popularity with the people.

The man was a pillar of character and Republican ideology. His Republican party is the party I to belong to. His politics were pure and progressive in the most human sense. He clearly understood the need for leaders to maintain a level playing field for all, ignore special interests, restore integrity in government service, and promote and defend with extreme prejudice, the American culture as the finest and the world's preeminent way of life. He was realistic about the rate of change in social progress and understood the need for man to be challenged as individuals in order to appreciate life and achievement at all levels. He knew that without individual struggle, there can be no freedom worth having.

Progressive "ideology" in 1912 called for a "New Nationalism", social justice and direct democracy.

Any of this sound familiar yet?

ETA : To our misfortune most of history was written by progressives so it's not surprising that most Americans are unaware of the destruction they have done. It has been pointed out that TR was the beginning of Big Government and interventionist controls. TR re-interpenetrated the Constitution and believed it allowed a vast expansion of executive power, he ushered in the practice of ruling by executive order, bypassing the legislative process. He also laid laid the tracks for the Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Income Tax.

So yes, if you believe in these things then the current Republican party is for you..........as well as the Democrats, at least the Democrats are honest about it :

"I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."

Perhaps you folks don't understand what a Republicanism is. Republicans aren't against government. If you are against government, you are an anarchist.

The era of industrialization was mature by the time TR came to power. Big Business was opprressive in monopolistic ways as well as in how it treated its labor. Indeed, it was evil. If ever there was a time for progressives to shine, it was then.

As with everything there are degrees. The brand of progressivism that TR held was admirable. He was a trust buster, a nationalist, and an advocate of a level playing field. Unlike modern "progressives" who advocate charity without reason, TR advocated opportunity for all and restraint on the very powerful.

In his "New Nationalism" speech TR stated that there was a general right of the community to regulate the earning of income and use of private property "to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."

He did not believe in private property rights and also said : the government should permit a man to earn and keep his property "only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."

This doesn't sound like freedom to me.

The Founding Fathers warned against both Tyrannical and Anarchical forms of governance. You should know, however, on a graphical scale the Republic form they chose rests much closer to Anarchy and for good reason.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” - George Washington

Woodrow Wilson should receive equal praise because TR shared his views : Woodrow Wilson, who had in 1885 condemned Americans' respect for their Constitution as "blind worship," and suggested that his countrymen dedicate themselves to the Declaration of Independence by leaving out its "preface"

This winter while we enjoy the warmth of our coal burning stoves, I recommend the following reading material to all interested parties.

The 5000 year leap-W. Cleon SkousenThe Forgotten Man-Amitty ShalesLiberal Facism-Jonah GoldbergThe American Classic Series-you can get the 5000 year leap included : http://www.nccs.net/

Wow. It's like watching someone become a Democrat before our very eyes. First you post advocating a very progressive form of taxation to pay for health care reform and now Teddy Roosevelt is your hero?

Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson are a good example of the (R) is good (D) is bad routine. They were both Progressives, authoritarian and viewed the Constitution as an impediment to their ideology. Both should be viewed with disdain but as I stated earlier, it is of no surprise that the written words of modern history weave a more waxing tale of both men.

Here is a recent quote from Ronald J. Pestritto, author of Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism that best describes the situation at hand :

Looking ahead, conservatives hardly need to look back to progressives for inspiration. If there is a desire to “conserve” or restore something about our political tradition that has been lost with the rise of modern liberalism, how about the American founding as a model? It is with the founders that we can find the patriotic promotion of America as an exceptionally great nation — a notion that attracts some conservatives to TR.

The difference is that, with the founders as a model, we get the idea of American greatness, but without the progressives’ assault on the very enduring principles that justify America’s claim to greatness in the first place.

BnB, your quotes badly mischaracterized TR and his beliefs. You must read the entire original speech and place that in the context of his life. Then and only then may you may begin your refutation.

In the future I'd advise you to go to the source. The "scholar" you cite is woefully inadequate in his treatment of TR. Mr. Pestritto's analysis is superficial and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Founder's intent, TR's life, and erroneously equates conservatism with Republicanism. His words from a WSJ article:

The fact that conservative politicians such as John McCain and writers like William Kristol and Karl Rove are attracted to our 26th president is strange because, if we want to understand where in the American political tradition the idea of unlimited, redistributive government came from, we need look no further than to Roosevelt and others who shared his outlook.

The notion that TR wanted an unlimited, redistributive government is absurd. What he wanted was a powerful regulatory government that allowed the common to triumph over the privileged when they merited it. That is freedom. He differed from the Founders because he knew the power of the corporatists must be rivaled if the hope that is America was to prevail.

Frankly, I think Republicans have been suckered by liberals into casting aside one of their own ideological heros. JKF unceremoniously signed the authorization of the Sagamore Hill site with a cheap ball point pen and was unenthusiastic according to park rangers--the pen is on display at the site. The distancing of TR by Republicans and conservatives is a phenomenon courtesy of the manipulative media. You have been duped so that TR, like Lincoln can be co-opted by the Dems as one of their ideological heroes.

In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive for now.

At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. That is nothing new. All I ask in civil life is what you fought for in the Civil War. I ask that civil life be carried on according to the spirit in which the army was carried on. You never get perfect justice, but the effort in handling the army was to bring to the front the men who could do the job. Nobody grudged promotion to Grant, or Sherman, or Thomas, or Sheridan, because they earned it. The only complaint was when a man got promotion which he did not earn. -T.R.

If you think the above quote is somehow socialistic because it is progressive in dealing with national issues, you don't understand your country's roots nor do you understand Republicanism. I believe Teddy left his party because it became too conservative and inflexible and was in danger of becoming the party of the privileged. The need to battle corporatism and the beginning of the end of the nuclear family was of primary concern for TR. His moral compass was true to God.

It wasn't until the Bull Moose party was formed that the split you refer to began; one that even resembled the "progressives" of today. Unfortunately TR's short lived Bull Moose party helped the New Deal democrats more than the convservatives. The split gave them the election. Afterward Teddy returned to the Republican party and the rest to the New Deal Democrats.

Sorry but I cannot fault the man for his mildly left leaning viewpoints on a few subjects. They were rooted in his spiritual morality. Similarly, I do not support the death penalty. It adds nothing to justice, nor contributes to safety, nor aids budget considerations. It merely sanctions an immoral act that is clearly avoidable via the power of government..

tvb wrote:Wow. It's like watching someone become a Democrat before our very eyes. First you post advocating a very progressive form of taxation to pay for health care reform and now Teddy Roosevelt is your hero?

Amazing.

Teddy is definitely a hero of mine and the Republican Party.

"one reason for health care reform....or not" was the title of the thread. I gave my one reason as "eliminate the third party payment of health care" and suggested how is could be done. The real problem is economics, or rather ignoring economics.

I don't advocate health care reform in the sense of a government takeover as the third party payer. Third party payers are the problem, not the solution. The third party payer systems shield the knowledge of cost from the consumer. This creates a perception that services are "free" and causes fees to escalate. This crowds out the poor from basic direct-pay service. It is not a problem for those who are productive members of society. It is only a problem for those who aren't and have health issues.

So, a tax is the only answer to the "problem" of universal coverage as perceived by the left and those who are not covered. Everyone needs to understand the cost driver and everyone needs to pay according to their abilities (to satisfy the socialists and capitalists alike). What they will receive is basic health care, the definition for which is the debate we will soon be immersed in if we have universal health care. However, those with means should be able to get better care if they wish to pay for it.

The portion of our total economy that pertains to health care costs is 17% and is the true cost of health care---in other words 17% of every paycheck in one form or another pay for health care at current costs. Placing the payment in the direct control of the consumer will lower costs as they shop to get the best bang for their buck while keeping the free enterprise system in place with regard to health care.

What I outlined is only food for thought.

There cannot be a solution to the problem of universal health care without a tax or forced premium of some sort. There cannot be a solution to the problem of rising costs without either a reduction in quality or service. These are the simple facts of economics. Should the US government under Obama's leadership decide to offer UHC and reduce health care costs, slowly over time (the key operative strategy for change by the democrats) there will be an increase in tax to those who can afford to be taxed and a decrease in both quality and service for those who were already covered.

EXCERPTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS TONIGHT:

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/09/obama-if-you-misrepresent-whats-in-the-plan-we-will-call-you-out/

mikeandgerry wrote:There cannot be a solution to the problem of universal health care without a tax or forced premium of some sort. There cannot be a solution to the problem of rising costs without either a reduction in quality or service. These are the simple facts of economics.

Why is that a "fact" of economics?

I offer my own experience with LASIK surgery. That procedure was $10k+/eye when it first showed up. I had mine done 7 years ago for $1600 for BOTH eyes.

No insurance involved. And I'd be willing to bet that the time it takes to do the procedure and the success rate has INCREASED in that time.

So it is IN FACT possible to drive the cost down while increasing quality.

All you need is minimal regulation and as much COMPETITION as possible.

There is a company in Washington state called Qliance offering basic medical insurance for $49-$79/month. Why not let them operate nationally? At the very least, remove the restriction on individuals so they can buy out of state insurance.

None of this will be done, because the objective is to control the people.

It's certainly not out of concern for the population. The government doesn't care about you, they only care about what you will do for them.

Your analysis doesn't consider all of the economic constraints of UNIVERSAL care at current levels of quality, cost and price as the administration is striving for.

PRICE-QUALITY-SERVICE. Pick any two. That is but one unwritten law of economics.

Your lasik surgery became cheaper as a result of the amortization of investment. That is a phenomenon of most new technology or investment.

The rest of health care or any economic product or service is commodity based: labor, material, time. Those are contraints that cannot be negotiated without changing one or more of the factors of price-quality-service.

I agree that a regulated profit-oriented free marketplace will provide the optimal mix.

I do not agree that the extremes of unbridled capitalism nor government-dominated socialism will do a better job at providing safe UHC than a republic-regulated competitive economy.

As it stands, I don't feel our system is broken. I think it needs regulation but not a complete reconstruction. In order to provide UHC, force of some sort must be applied by government. I prefer regulatory force rather than seizure of the means of production.

As I see it the problem is third party payments. They separate the reality of the value of the product or service from the consumer and thus the self-regulating effect of the marketplace is lost. As a result we have leaped ahead in medical care service beyond our society's desire to pay if we cannot accept that 17% (or more) of our total pay packages should be devoted to health care. I alluded to this in another post.

I am not a socialist. I am not a libertarian. I am not a democrat. I am not a liberal. I am not an anarchist.

I am a Republican. I believe in a mix of capitalism and government regulation.

Get in the game and write your congress people to tell them how you want health care reform.

I personally want to hear more proposals and options on reform. The haste of the administration on this matter irritates me to no end. There is a solution to prevent the demise and indignity of those suffering without health insurance but there is an extreme cost. That debate needs to be publicized and personalized for all Americans to hear and see. Until then it will be partisan bickering.

I do not take up liberal causes. This cause however is something that affects all individuals and represents a moral dilemma in a wealthy nation. Our third party payer system and excessive awards from civil suits have made health care costs for certain basic services priced out of reach of 98% of the people who don't have insurance. That is the problem. I prefer that people make their own choices but the excessive costs have made the choice for many already.

TR was about opportunity and level playing fields. What opportunity is there when you cannot ever hope to compete with the giant corporations? TR hated corporatism and real conservatives and republicans should also.